Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 07-1110
(D.C. No. 04-cv-00665-RPM )
(D . Colo.)
Defendants-Appellees,
--------------------------------------------W ILLIA M S. K A RN ,
Appellant.
After examining appellants brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G ). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This
order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
-2-
statements to the court did not constitute valid objections. Feb. 26, 2007, Order
Denying Shareowner Objection. The court also ordered that a so-called
memorandum of law filed by M r. Karn one day before the fairness hearing
be stricken from the record because its contents were irrelevant. Id. M r. Karn
filed a timely notice of appeal.
***
M r. Karns appeal apparently only concerns the district courts denial of
standing for M r. Karns objection. Specifically, he presents two questions to this
court: 1) w hether the district courts denial of standing violated his Fifth
Amendment rights of due process; and 2) whether the denial of standing violated
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. For at least three independent
reasons, we affirm the district courts denial of M r. Karns objection to the
proposed settlement.
First, we affirm because M r. Karn fails to appeal the district courts second,
independent ground for denying his objection namely, its conclusion that M r.
Karn, standing or no standing, simply did not raise any valid objection. See
M etzger v. U NU M Life Ins. C o. of Am., 476 F.3d 1161, 1168 (10th Cir. 2007)
(affirming because appellant did not challenge on appeal the district courts
second, independent ground for judgment).
Second, we affirm because we agree that M r. Karn indeed lacked standing
to object to the proposed settlement. Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
-4-
-5-
procedural requirements with which he must comply deprive him or others of any
constitutional rights. Affirmed. 1
Neil M . Gorsuch
Circuit Judge